Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

LANDCASTERATED MEDIA

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

Nearly three decades ago The Washington Post assigned their first “local” reporter to a beat focused on “transportation.” A number of us worked with John Lancaster to help him learn the territory, understand the land-use / transportation connection and the role of transport in evolving what we now call functional human settlement patterns made up of Balanced Communities in sustainable New Urban Regions.

John did a fine job and was just rounding into becoming a knowledgeable player in a reasoned approach to mobility and access when he called to report he had been “promoted” to Anapolis.

“No, no, John transportation is a regional issue.”

“I know but my new assignment is Maryland politics, it is the only way I can get a promotion.”

So ended a promising start. John now reports from the far corners of the globe. Those who have followed him with the transportation portfolio have stayed for longer or shorter times. Our files indicate there have been at least 21 reporters who have called to say they were covering transportation. Some are still with WaPo covering other topics, some are not.

If one includes the broader field of “development” there are more than 50 WaPo folders in our current and dead files. Only a few ever stayed long enough to ask intelligent questions about human settlement patterns before they moved on, or out.

Now it has happened again. Alec MacGillis who, as readers of this Blog know, had gained an understanding of current transportation and land use issues has been “promoted” to “national politics.”

In other words, Mr. MacGillis has been “Lancastered.” The more important, the largest media outlet in the National Capital Subregion and the general public have been Landcastrated.

The practice of Landcasterazation leaves editors who know just what the publisher likes to see covered in full charge of what and how land-use / transportation issues are reported. Human settlement pattern issues are not rocket science, they are far more complex. Throwing a promising young journalist into the pot is bad, sending them on just when they begin to learn some of the complexity undermines the ability of the Fourth Estate to fulfill its obligation to society.

The checks and balances of traditional journalism require both knowledgeable reporters and bottom-line focused publishers with editors striking a balance. When reporters have to rely on he said / she regurgitation of vested interests, the region loses.

The loss of MacGillis is especially critical right now. An informed decision on a tunnel or an elevated METRO extension to Reston / Dulles / Eastern Loudoun is critical. All citizens of the Subregion will hear about are the views of those who have a dog in the fight:

The governor and politicians who want to be able to say they “solved the problem,” and

Land owners, their agents and proxies who would not profit as much from what may be the best long term solution.

We will be exploring this issue further in an upcoming column.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

29 responses to “LANDCASTERATED MEDIA”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR,
    The Post’s career pattern used to be fairly typical for a promising young journalist. You start off on night cops, get thrown into local government and if you are lucky, you graduate onto the state house or Congress. Since the Post is probably the nation’s premier national political newspaper and still has a fair number of foreign bureaus, a reporter is inclined to shoot for those, since they DO take a special experience. Foreign correspondence can take years of preparation in language, cultural and political studies, and so on.
    Too bad for you, but intelligent land use reporting is considered a beginner’s assignment. As newspapers cut down their Washington coverage and shutter foreign bureaus, attention of local issues, unfortunately, is not likely to get any better. Newspaper managers think they have to shift to entertainment and sports to drum up sagging circulation. So, as bad as you may think the past has been, the future will be much worse.

  2. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Anon 7:35:

    You are absolutly right.

    How in a democracy with a market economy do citizens, spurred on by the likes of Bloggers, do something about conventional journalism?

    By not buying papers or supporting advertisers until the pratice changes.

    Just last week WaPo ran a story about how the only newspapers that were making money were ones with a New Urban Region focus that also covered important issues from a subregional, Community, Village, Neighborhood and Cluster perspective. (They called it “local” — one of the Core Confusing Words — but you get the message.)

    For those who think this is not an important issue look at the top story in today’s Metro section including the picture on page two.

    After work today, we will post an analysis of what MacGillis could have said, had he not been shifted off to cover Sens Heagle, McCain, Brownback, Clinton, Obama, Romney and the rest generate really important “news.”

    EMR

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR,
    Yes, local newspapers, especially those that have a community monopoly, seem immune from the current downturn. Unfortunately, their quality is all over the map. Some are serious and naturally take land use issues very seriously. Others are shills for their advertising departments (real estate and developers) or some family interest that owns them.

  4. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    The following is what every citizen should be able to figure out for themselves.

    However, until they can, there is a desperate need for well-informed staff in the Main-Stream Media to help citizens visualize future options.

    In today’s WaPo the lead Metro story is about Fairfax County Metro station-area development. It is a generally factual report of what went on when the Board adopted new and very intelligent .25 and .50 mile radii policy criteria.

    There is also a rendering of an elevated track in Greater Tysons Corner.

    I swear that we had no idea that this would be in the paper when we posted the original lament on the Landcasterazation of media last night at 6 PM.

    Here is a step by step walk through:

    Go back to the 18 Feb WaPo story about Greater Tysons Corner and the Rosslyn Ballston Corridor. Take the photo of Greater Tysons Corner to the copy machine and blow it up 200%. (In the alternative, use the air photo at the current scale with a magnifying glass.)

    Draw .25 (125 acres) and .50 (500 acres) radii around the four stations.

    The first thing you see is that the much of the land within .25 miles (1,320 ft.) of the station platform is within public right-of-way.

    That is a good thing because the public already owns the land and it will be very valuable when there is a METRO platform in that right of way.

    How valuable? Within .25 miles at FAR 8 there would be around 6.4 Mil sq. ft. over the right-of-way alone. At today’s prices that is about $1.9 Billion worth of Class A space.

    How much would a knowledgeable developer pay for a 99 year lease to build 6.4 Mil sq. ft. over a public right of way that is adjacent to a METRO platform? Enough to pay for an extended platform and for enhancements plus a contribution to cover other capital costs of extending METRO. It would be simple to put out an RFP and check the value.

    The only constraint is that with four stations the total area at FAR 8 is over 25 mil sq. ft. within in public air rights alone. It will take some time to adsorb all that space. All of Greater Tysons Corner is not in the neighborhood of 35 mil sq ft of non-residential space.

    You will not hear about air rights from Greater Tysons Corner land owners because they want to build on their own vacant and underutilized land. They will not issue any press releases about the opportunities for real “transit-related” development.

    You will not hear about air rights from those who want to build the rail system because they would not make more money from such a scheme.

    You will not hear about them from the governance practitioners because it is the land owners and those who want to build the railroad who make the political donations.

    The only ones who would really benefit are the general public and they do not yet understand why they should be interested. That is the role of the Fourth Estate and they just “promoted” the only one who might raise the right issues.

    Now about a tunnel vs an overhead METRO line:

    Take a look at photo on page two of today’s story.

    The first thing is that with development following the new Fairfax County criteria and with use of the air rights there would be very little elevated track visible and so the eye-sore argument goes out the window.

    Some have suggested a benefit of the elevated line would be the view from a train. Not many shared-vehicle riders are attracted by exhilarating views from a car window on an elevated line, they are in a hurry to get somewhere. There are exceptions such as the views from the Stockholm system and of course views could be incorporated in select locations.

    Now about the reason citizens will ride the METRO extension in the first place:

    Take out a piece of lined paper and highlight a line in the middle of the page and call this line “ground”. Look at the elevated line and think of what a tunnel and an elevated line would look like in cross-section.

    On the left side of the paper go down two lines and draw a wide tunnel with track and platforms and an escalator up the ground. Draw a street for cars, median and sidewalks – 150 to 300 feet depending on the location, traffic flow and “amenity” of the streetscape. Recall that either in a tunnel or on the surface, without air rights development, all citizens have to cross at least half this street to get to buildings beyond the side walks which might go up 12 or 14 lines (stories).

    On the right side draw highlight each line above the ground up 12 or 14 lines. On the ground draw the street. The second story is the deck over the street and on the next level draw the track and platform.

    When citizens get on a shared-vehicle system it is not to joy ride but to get to where the want or need to be. We know that the closer to the METRO car door the destination is, the more likely citizens are to ride the system.

    In your diagram which scheme has the greatest access to origins and destinations for shared-vehicle system riders in the buildings closest to the station platform?

    Yes, there can be tree lined boulevards with sidewalk cafes in some locations and yes ventilation and sound deadening will be more expensive, yes views can be provided…

    However, the bottom line is citizens are spending $4 Billion to build a system to get as many as possible from where they are to where they want or need to go.

    It is clear that air rights is the way to go be it tunnel or elevated.

    The elevated track may or may not be the very best way to build the METRO extension.

    The problem is that in spite of many examples of this sort of development, these ideas will never see the light of day in MainStream media because, as we noted in the original post, none of those who have staff and write press releases are interested in solutions that are not Business-As-Usual.

    EMR

  5. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Give me a break. You really think thisis (potentially) worth 6.4 million per square foot for air rights? Not land, air rights?

    Lets put out an RFP and see how much someone would be willing to pay to create new space from scratch and suspend it in mid air over existing public space.

    I submit the energy requirements alone would make this impractical. let alone the engineering.

    “The only constraint is that with four stations the total area at FAR 8 is over 25 mil sq. ft. within in public air rights alone. It will take some time to adsorb all that space.”

    So what you are saying is that someone might have to speculate to make this happen.

    And all we have to do to make this speculatio happen is to engineer, import, construct and create new land instead of using vacant and underutilized land.

    Sounds like a great idea to me. Let me know if it ever happens so I can buy stock in the banks – short.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Mr Hyde:

    Now we know why Geographic Iliteracy is such a problem with you. You cannot read.

    Dr. Risse said:

    “How valuable? Within .25 miles at FAR 8 there would be around 6.4 Mil sq. ft. over the right-of-way alone. At today’s prices that is about $1.9 Billion worth of Class A space.

    “How much would a knowledgeable developer pay for a 99 year lease to build 6.4 Mil sq. ft. over a public right of way that is adjacent to a METRO platform? Enough to pay for an extended platform and for enhancements plus a contribution to cover other capital costs of extending METRO. It would be simple to put out an RFP and check the value.”

    You opened your comment with:

    “Give me a break. You really think thisis (potentially) worth 6.4 million per square foot for air rights? Not land, air rights?”

    No, Dr. Risse said there was the potential of about 6.4 million sq ft of built space at FAR 8 over the right-of-way.

    He said nothing about how much a buyer would pay per square foot. Simple math suggests he used $300 per square foot to calculate the eventural value of the 6.4 million sq ft.

    It would appear if he said north is at the top of the map you would disagree just to disagree.

    Please limit your remarks to things you understand in the Caribbean or in Tysons Corner.

    Anon Zora and Zora

  7. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    You are right. I stand corrected.

    $300/sq ft is much more reasonable.

  8. Real Inconvenient Truth Avatar
    Real Inconvenient Truth

    Ray Hyde:

    Don’t apologize. Your instincts were a lot better than Risse or Zora on this air rights issue.

    Risse asked the question:
    “How much would a knowledgeable developer pay for a 99 year lease to build 6.4 Mil sq. ft. over a public right of way that is adjacent to a METRO platform? Enough to pay for an extended platform and for enhancements plus a contribution to cover other capital costs of extending METRO. It would be simple to put out an RFP and check the value.”

    There is no need for an RFP to get the answer.

    Air rights along a Metro extension to Dulles have very little value. In fact, the platform alone probably costs more than the development rights are worth, resulting in a negative value.

    How do I know?

    Just a few months ago, 15 acres of air rights over the Metro Station at Union Station were sold for only $10 million dollars. The developer plans to build 3 million square feet, so he paid only 3 dollars and 33 cents per square foot of development air rights. At that rate Risse’s “6.4 Mil sq. ft. over a public right of way” would be worth just over $21 million ($3.33 x 6,400,000 = $21,312,000).

    Read the article here:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100100717.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

    Of course, we all know office space within two blocks from the U.S. Capitol in downtown Washington, DC rents for a lot more than Tysons and so the Tysons air rights would be worth a lot less, if anything at all. Even assuming they are equal in value, $21 million would not help much in paying for a $4 billion dollar rail extension.

    And just how much is 6.4 million square feet of development worth right now in the Dulles Corridor west of Tysons and not anywhere near a future Metro Station? Some of the latest sales were at $45 per square foot. So that same 6.4 million square feet is worth $288 million dollars in the Reston Herndon market ($45 x 6,400,000 = $288,000,000) even without Metro.

    There is currently 3.6 million square feet of Class A office space under construction or just completed in the Reston Herndon market which is now larger than the Tysons market.

    Building concrete platforms to get air rights at Tysons would just be throwing money away. The developer paid less than $667,000 per acre for the Union Station air rights. West Group sold land at Tysons for more than $10 million dollars an acre. That is 15 times per acre more than the Union Station air rights sold for. The difference in value is the enormous cost of building the concrete platform.

    If you want to raise money for Metro, selling more development rights on land next to the stations will be a lot more profitable than “air rights” land over roads or on top of the stations.

  9. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I made a mistake and Zora caught it. I was wrong, no apology needed.

    But as you point out, my error is a minor issue, the facts haven’t changed. If you want to propose a project because you think it will help the environment someplace else, then that project needs to be profitable. Whether it is “good” or not makes about as much difference as my opinion.

    speaking of inconveneint truths, you might want to look at the Environmental and Urban Economics blog. There are fascinating papers there this week by Mathew Kahn “Does Sprawl Enhance Our Quality of Life?”; A reprint of Glaeser and Acemoglu mathcing wits on whether Democracy is the best setting for economic growth; and Michael Cieply on “Green Movies: Holywood as a Catalyst for Climate Change Policy”.

    Since EMR has previously suggested taking over the profits of the entertainment industry in order to promote better patterns, he’ll probably have something to say on that topic.

    But the first one, by Mathew Kahn is full of what appear to be inconvenient truths.

    “While there are multiple reasons for why quality of life progress has taken place, I will mainly emphasize the role of population decentralization, i.e sprawl, as an important contributor to this trend. Why might sprawl cause improvements in quality of life in large metropolitan areas? At the turn of the 20th century, high density cities featured ample contagion and disease risk. Reduced population density lowers these risks. Communities further from the CBD feature lower levels of pollution. As employment decentralizes, suburban workers can commute faster to suburban employment centers than to the congested CBD. In cities around the United States, the poor tend to cluster in the center city…..as the middle class suburbanize, the average person’s exposure to urban ills declines. “

    “This paper’s empirical contribution is to use a number of data sets to examine trends over time and across cities with respect to pollution, congestion and crime. ……..Using repeat cross-sections from 1980 through 2005, I test whether compensating differentials for living in big cities are declining over time. I document that house price evidence in big cities is consistent with the hypothesis that big cities are becoming “more livable” over time.”

    “Big cities feature more crime, more pollution and more congestion than smaller cities. These non-market local public bads can significantly reduce quality of life in big cities (Tolley 1974, Glaeser 1998). Compensating differentials studies have used hedonic methods to quantify cross-city wage premium and housing discounts for living in a low quality of life city (Rosen 1979, Roback 1982, Blomquist et. al. 1988, Gyourko and Tracy 1991).”

    I have not absorbed all of this yet, but the overall gist is that urban areas do have more problems, and some of those problems are compensated by other assets. While the city problems remain tha have been alleviated somewhat and the prognosis for urban living is improving. Surprisingly, much of the improvement is due to the effects of subrbanization.

    Ambient air pollution in major cities such as London, New York City and Pittsburgh first increased and then decreased over the 20th century. The reasosn are a transition from the use of coal, cleaner automobiles, and migration of manufacturing out of the city. But even though city air has improved, it is still far worse than areas outside the city. “Per mile of distance from the CBD, within the same metro area, ambient particulates and sulfur dioxide decline by 1% while carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide decline by 2%.” ….”I document that the probably that a TRI site is located in a zip code declines by 1.5 percentage points for each mile of distance from the CBD. In column (8), I show that the probability that there is at least one superfund site in a zip code declines by 1 percentage point for each mile of distance from the CBD.”

    “People in big cities are more likely to commute using public transit and this increases their commute times. All else equal, a worker who commutes using public transit travels 11 miles per hour slower than a worker who commutes by car. Public transit use explains 25% of the big city speed penalty.”

    “A doubling of metro size increases the average one way commute time by 2 minutes. Public transit use in big cities explains half of this relationship. The average public transit user’s commute is 23 minutes longer than the average car commuter’s. The fourth panel presents a new result. Controlling for city size and distance to work, commute times are shorter for people who live further from the CBD.”

    And so forth. But go read it yourself, if you are not allergic to inconvenient truths, or not afraid of thinking about things a little differently from the ususal environmental dogma.

  10. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    “I will mainly emphasize the role of population decentralization, i.e sprawl, as an important contributor to this trend.”

    You are confusing two things. Decentralization, or moving densities toward the “sweet spot” and “sprawl” moving to densities below the “sweet spot.”

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Exactly, but that is what needs to be determined, isn’t it? I just quoted the author, so it isn’t me that is confusing the issue.

    It seems to me that what you are saying is that we need better vocabulary, basically EMR’s frequent argument.

    I agree, but better vocabulary is meaningess without better metrics. You have your idea of what the sweet spot is, but evidently the population has a different idea.

    I won’t argue with you that there isn’t some theoretical collection of “sweet spots” that is better than what we have. I say sweet spots because I think there are many of them, scattered here and there.

    As I see it, part of the problem is that they grow and merge until they fall out of the sweet spot category. Or they can overdensify, or gain too much job growth.

    Each of these conditions is dynamic, and driven by individuals trying to find their own sweet spot, or stuck in one that is changing around them.

    Overall, if the author is correct, then things are not going to hell but actually improving, little by little.

    Maybe that is all we can reasonably expect. Meanwhile, we need to find a way to determine when we are too far from the sweet spot, and figure out what we need to build (or tear down) to improve the situation.

    My position is that we need mor places. It would be nice if those places had their own sweet spots, that part I’m not arguing.

  12. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    “It seems to me that what you are saying is that we need better vocabulary, basically EMR’s frequent argument.”

    We need more individuals who read to learn. Vocabulary is important and looking for meaning in context is important. One help is a dictionary. Sweet spot in the Encarta Dictionary included in Microsoft Word is defined as “the most effective place to hit the ball on a racket, bat, club, or other piece of sports equipment.”

    In the Smart Growth context it is the most effective density to provide the highest quality of life.

    “I agree, but better vocabulary is meaningess without better metrics. You have your idea of what the sweet spot is, but evidently the population has a different idea.”

    The population has a wide range of desires for a high quality of life. It is reflected in the range of costs for housing reported related to locations. Just as you can hit the ball at many spots on your racket, bat or club you can have locations that have densities that may not be at the sweet spot or most effective.

    “I won’t argue with you that there isn’t some theoretical collection of “sweet spots” that is better than what we have. I say sweet spots because I think there are many of them, scattered here and there.”

    I fail to see how you can have many “most effective” densities. I can see only three. Transit oriented, normal and forest and agriculture.

  13. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “I can see only three, transit oriented, normal, and forest and agriculture.”

    I think that is just sad.

    Transit oriented is a special case, as is agriculture. In both cases only a small percentage of what we have is actually “effective”.

    That gets us down to what is “normal”. As you say, the population has a wide range of desires for a high quality of life. Isn’t what they have chosen, the sweet spot for them?

    Marshall, Warrenton, Centreville, and Ballston are entirely different animals. Wouldn’t you say that each of them has a different sweet spot? Or consider a place like the Landmark area of Alexandria. Wouldn’t you say that as it has in-filled, that its sweet spot has changed?

    If the Smart Grwoth context is that it is the most effective density to provide the highest quality of life, and if people have a wide range of desires for a high quality of life, then shouldn’t the Smart Growth context include more than three choices?

    Anyway, who decides what is the “most effective” or “highest quality”? I’d submit that one measure of “most effective” is low taxation and low rents, which pretty much leaves out Arlington.

    Clearly, that can’t be the right answer, so we need better metrics, and they need to be ones that accomodate a wide range of desires.

    If the author is right, and doubling the size of the Metro area increases commute time by only two minutes, and if commutes are actually shorter for those living farther from the CBD, then maybe we need to re-figure what is really most effective.

  14. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Here is what I think.

    Identify all the CBD’s, big or small. Draw circles around them. The size of the circle is based on a mixed criteria involving the population, number of jobs, and proximity to the next CBD.

    The way I envision it Marshall and The Plains would each have a circle. Marshall’s circle would be larger than the circle around The Plains. Both circles would be limited when they intersect. The next towns are Delaplane and Markham. They might have circles as large as Marshall because there is nothing for them to intersect.

    In the case of, say, Clarendon and Ballston the critria would be mainly population and jobs, because the area is relatively built up.

    In order to encourage density, zoning near the center would be unlimited. If you want to build a Walmart, knock yourself out, but it has to be in the center.

    The circles would be divided into five rings. The allowed density of each ring would be the density of the next inner ring, divided by the ring number.

    In this way, zoning would not be “fixed” but would be subject to change in a known and predictable manner. If the CBD is 100 people per acre, then ring two is zoned at 50 per acre, ring three is zoned at 50/3 = 17 per acre, and ring 4 at 4 per acre, Ring 5 would be 0.8 per acre.

    When the CBD doubles, then ring 2 would be allowed to double to 100, ring three would grow to 33, ring four to 8, and ring 5 to 4.

    People would know and understand the growth rules. They would know where they are allowed to build without limit (other than economic limits) and where growth will be the slowest. No one is cut out, perpetually, unless they wish to be, in which case they can give up an easement.

    This would provide many densities, incentive for high density, encourage more “places”, and eliminate the calls to stop all development, because the rules would be transparent.

    Call it “by-right” development on a sliding scale.

    Comments?

  15. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    You are working too much. It is a lot easier, eliminate minimum lot size zoning. Your other task is to make the developer pay for water, sewers and roads. This includes a fee based on $1,000,000 per lane mile for the average journey to work. It’s easy, when you are talking about communities with no jobs and lots of open space.

  16. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Ah, yes. But I think you miss the point.

    By making development esentially unlimited in the central areas, developers and businesses have many more choices. They can choose between high dollar space in Ballston or much less valuable space someplace else. But wherever it is it will be the most central to the area.

    Since the density is always geometric, you eliminate the linear sprawl. By making the density geometric you ensure at least some open space. You can increase this by allowing the sale of density, but only from the lower density places to the higher. In this way, those on the fringes can benefit from growth AND conservation without being penalized.

    People in the intermediate areas will know that their present density is not protected indefinitely. Based on the rate of growth in the central area they can predict their future, and make plans accordingly.

    The idea that the developer is going to pay for water sewer and roads is utterly bogus. The developers will pass those costs on to the buyers. That will raise the sale price of new homes, and the appraised price of existing homes.

    There is no average journey to work, and no average price per lane mile. Furthermore, there is no linkage between where a developer builds and the lane miles he causes. The developer who builds yet another office building in Fairfax may create demand for roads some distance away. If he creates demand for roads in Fairfax, they may not be available and may cost far more that a million a mile.

    Meanwhile, 15 or 20 miles away, the small builder creating homes needed to fill the office building is getting hammered for a million a mile, to create roads that are not fully used, yet. Later, when infill begins, the early residents complain because the later builders are filling up “their” roads.

    My plan would eliminate that argument.

    If you are going to make the developer pay (initally at least) for water sewer and roads, then his costs to do that are going to be far higher in urban areas. At least if you believe people should pay their full locational costs. This differential would increase the likliehood that he would choose Manassas over Fairfax, just as the FBI did.

    In time, my plan would result in communities with jobs, and still plenty of open space. As a result, I believe it would also reduce the average journey to work, just as sugested by the author cited.

    The question remains, what kind of open space. As a society, we seem to have reached the point where we value open space, and for good reason. But then, we schizophrenically devalue it with large lot restrictions, and other restraints. Having eliminated most of the development potential, we then propose PDR’s and TDR’s.

    Open space that is truly “open” will be available for all to use and enjoy, but that means we all need to pay for it. Otherwise we will wind up with tax protected private parks for a few, and everbody else jammed into transit oriented development. I fail to see how that provides the greatest good to the most people.

    Especially since it is the people who are paying for the tax protection.

    Twice.

    Once through tax giveaways and once through artificially higher housing costs.

    If the real issue is to preserve open space, then the real answer is to make open space profitable. The way you do that is to charge the urban residents for the true value of the (currently) unpriced services open space provides.

    Instead, we charge the owners of open space extra, over and above the taxation on their home, and use that to subsidize residential areas. In addition, we further devalue open space by proposing confiscatory fees for its (eventually necessary) development.

    The plain and simple facts are that when land is valued at more than $6000 an acre, you cannot farm it profitably, for the most part. My plan recognizes that the value is related to the value of land nearby, and allows the owner to expect that he will eventually be able to realize some of that value. My plan requires the neighbors to recognize those facts and eventually acquiesce gracefully.

    You say that it is easier to eliminate minimum lot size zoning. I don’t see it that way. If you tried that around where I live, there would be open warfare. WE just watched the struggle in Western Loudoun over this issue.

    However, if it was combined with your proposal for full payment of all infrastructure costs, then the effective limitation on land use might (I say, might) have the desired effect.

    It does seem to me that the million dollar per lane mile fee for the average journey to work should be shared by the developers at both ends of the journey: it takes two to tango. The other problem is, how do you determine the average journey to work? There used to be a lot of people who worked at the AVTEX plant in Front Royal or the Cellophane plane in Fredericksburg who are now long distance commuters.

    Who pays for all those additional miles? I have moved three times to be closer to work, and six times, those plans have gone astray. So, if you are going to charge a million a mile for creating longer trips to work, then you should be also willing to grant a million a mile when an employer opts to move in such a way those miles will be reduced.

    It seems to me that what you are proposing is a situation that is not only impossible, but MORE impossible for urban areas.

    My proposal recognizes facts as they are, encourages centralized density, and encourages people to hold on to open space, knowing it will be more valuable later.

    I’d say my plan is far more realistic.

  17. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    When faced with a proposal built on whole cloth, I look for a few points where education may benefit the reader. Here are three:

    “The idea that the developer is going to pay for water sewer and roads is utterly bogus. The developers will pass those costs on to the buyers. That will raise the sale price of new homes, and the appraised price of existing homes.”
    The fact that current policies are based on society absorbing costs does not mean that the developer, and eventually the new owner, should not pay for the costs of his action. The proper allocation of costs is essential to a conservative market based approach. Yes, it will raise the sale price of new homes in areas where current costs are being subsidized by society. It will lower the costs in areas that are currently paying the subsidies.

    “If you are going to make the developer pay (initally at least) for water sewer and roads, then his costs to do that are going to be far higher in urban areas. At least if you believe people should pay their full locational costs. This differential would increase the likliehood that he would choose Manassas over Fairfax, just as the FBI did.” We are trying to repeal the 10x rule. (See Shape of the Future, page 95)
    Cost of services is dependent on density. Urban areas with higher densities have lower, not higher, costs.

    “The plain and simple facts are that when land is valued at more than $6000 an acre, you cannot farm it profitably, for the most part. My plan recognizes that the value is related to the value of land nearby, and allows the owner to expect that he will eventually be able to realize some of that value.” When the developer pays full costs, the value of the land will move from the artificially high current price that reflects subsidies, to a new realistic price. Those owners who have counted on selling the land at this inflated value will take a paper loss. If they were speculating in land when they bought it, the loss will be a speculation cost and may be real. Returning to real market values is a way out of our current problem. A regulated economy is another.

    I have only address three points in the nonsense of the previous post. If it is rewritten based on new thought that does not repeat these errors, I will be able to move on to other points.

  18. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    OK, I overstated my case. Homeowners should expect to pay for water and sewer, where it is available.
    What they should not do is pay costs that are inflated, punitive, or based on false analysis. I’d suggest that the million dollar fee for distance to work was in that category.

    I’d put the 10x rule in that category, too. It is not proven, and the high costs of city services and taxes suggests just the opposite. There are plenty of sources other than the “Shape of the Future”. When someone presents verifiable data presented without an associated agenda, then we can talk about what is nonsense and what isn’t.

    If urban areas have lower costs then why are the taxes and rents higher? Surely if there was actually room for competition it would appear, especially now. Right now, there are more than 2000 unsold condominiums in the DC area. Offering prices are in the range of $200,000 for a one bedroom 800 sq ft “home”. Sellers are reported as resistant to further lowering prices because they will be selling below cost.

    “When the developer pays full costs, the value of the land will move from the artificially high current price that reflects subsidies, to a new realistic price.” This statement is simply unsupported opinion. Besides, it misses my point. There is almost no real market for agricultural land, at any price. Even if what you say is true and the price of land drops, it won’t drop enough to make land agriculturally profitable. Until the food shortage is greater than the housing shortage, there will always be more money in homes than there is in chickens.

    What you are suggesting is artificially lowering the value through punitive measures, not just removing what you call subsidies. Your argument merely shifts some of the costs from the home buyer to the land seller. The developer still gets his profit, and the demand is still there for homes, but not for agriculture. Therefore, if you really want to save open space, make it more valuable, not less.

    What is the agenda, preserving open space, reducing total miles driven, or reducing wastage and pollution caused by congestion? I submit that to some extent the three are mutually exclusive.

    What I have suggested is a (relatively) free market means of promoting more density in more places, reducing total miles driven, and massive congestion in some areas in exchange for lesser congestion in more areas. It keeps some zoning in place, but reduces unrealistic expectations about preventing growth.

    If you insist on believing in the 10x rule there is nothing in my plan that undermines your belief.

  19. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    “What is the agenda, preserving open space, reducing total miles driven, or reducing wastage and pollution caused by congestion?”

    Could we replace your example agendas, with lower taxes and improved services? In other words create a better quality of life for Virginia’s citizens.

  20. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Back to Air Rights and Journalism:

    Anyone like to bet that Anon 3:29 has an interest in land West of Tysons Corner and is trying to discredit anyone who suggests finding out the value of air-rights?

    He suggests that no RFP is needed to establish value because of the Union Station sale.

    He is comparing Apples and Cumquats.

    Building over Union Station is far different than over a road right-of-way where much of the land is open, vacant right-of-way, especially over the leaves of a cloverleaf.

    What other things do the developer have to do when he build over the tracks at Union Station?

    The questions could go on and on but Anon 3:29 over played his hand by noteing the West Group sale for $10,000,000 an acre. At FAR 2 (within 1,000 feet of a METRO station) that is $114.78 a sq. ft. of built space. A lot different than Anon 3:29’s Cumquats at $3.33 a sq. ft.

    Since the land AT the station is more valuable and we suggested the FAR should be 8 that is $2.7 Billion for the total air-rights package. Not bad to help offset the cost of a $4 Billion project.

    OK, $2.7 Billion is way high but you can see the problem with not having a plan and a real bid.

    You can see why a reporter with no background could be scared off the story or an editor with a threat from one of their big advertisers would kill it.

    EMR

  21. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Hey, I’m all for lower taxes, but tht is not the only issue we are dealing with. Add lower taxes to the list of agendas, and then give them weighted importance, instead of dodging the question.

    One of the problems we have here is that any response to A brings up the question, “What about B?” Most solutions to any large problem, let alone a collection of large problems is going to involve trade-offs.

    I’m all for lower taxes, show me a densly populated place that has them. If you examine counties across the state, their expenditures per citizen are remarkably uniform. The outliers are sparsely poplulate Wise county, and heavily populated Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax.

    If settlement patterns are that important, why don’t we see the differences in expenditures?

  22. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I’ve made fun of your ideas over air rights in the past. Still, I can see that there are places where it makes sense. But I am a “small is beautiful” adherent. I have a very hard time seeing how it is worthwhile to make the upfront expenditure for all the engineering and energy expenditure to create new land in the sky, just to avoid using land we already have. Particularly if the main reason is to help subsidize a transportation system as dysfunctional and uneconomic as METRO.

    I once sailed a 40 foot boat across the ocean. We endured four days of full gale in the open ocean. Every ninety seconds the boat accelserated from near zero to 15 knots and back to zero. Every ninety seconds it climbed ofer a 25 foot sea and launched into space, after which it took a free fall of close to 25 feet.

    After three days of this, I was the only person on the boat who was still eating and sleeping regularly, and I began to worry about sustainability. Then I had to worm my way into a cramped and fetid locker to repair a bilge pump. After that it was a trip to the top of the mast to repair a halyard.

    As bad as things were on deck, or below, the conditions at the masthead were brutal. The acceleration is greatly multiplied.

    Last week I watched a show on the science channel about the next Arcadian earthquake. The show described how waves propagate through the earth as if it was liquid. Then they showed pictures of the skyline of Seattle.

    Forty feet up in twenty five foot waves was truly horrible. I looked at those pictures of the Seattle skyline and tried to imagine what it would be like up there in similar conditions, for ninety seconds or so.

    I’d take a week in a small boat first. I’d take a well built frame home in the suburbs first. I believe in small, simple, and easy.

    You can have all the air rights you want.

  23. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    “ I’m all for lower taxes, show me a densly populated place that has them. If you examine counties across the state, their expenditures per citizen are remarkably uniform. The outliers are sparsely poplulate Wise county, and heavily populated Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax.

    If settlement patterns are that important, why don’t we see the differences in expenditures?”

    Two answers. Back to the “sweet spot.” There are three “sweet spots” in settlement patterns. One is Agriculture and Forest land. Wise County has a lot of land in this sweet spot. Another “sweet spot” is Smart Growth Densities. Fairfax County has a lot of land that is outside the smart growth density range.

    You have confused Settlement patterns with Governance Patterns. This is an example of “One of the problems we have here is that any response to A brings up the question, ‘What about B?’” Counties are Governance areas not settlement areas. This dichotomy leads to the concentration of jobs in one location and housing in another or in short hand terms, Dumb Growth.

  24. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    By outliers, I meant highest expenditures per citizen. wise county, Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria all spend more than most of the other counties, which fall in a narrow range.

    Those counties have varying settlement patterns, yet their expenditures are similar. Both Arlington with a high density and Wise with a very low density fall outside that pattern ans spend far more per citizen.

    If Wise county has a lot of land in that sweet spot, why are their expenditures high. If Arlington is the Smart growth darling, why are their expenditures high? If the other counties have varying patterns, why are their expenditures similar?

    I understand your argument that the boundaries of settlement areas don’t match the boundaries of counties, but surely some are better than others, and that would be reflected in their costs.

    It would be nice for some governments if they could cherry pick their areas to include only the best settlment patterns, but it would be painful for those left with the dregs. The example I hypothesized above vaguely suggests that government patterns would be centered on the CBD’s, but they would still be responsible for outlying areas. Those places still have to be governed, I think.

    Or maybe government just spends whatever it can get its hands on, regardless of efficiency of providing services. Maybe most taxpayers get fed up at some point. Wise County mines a lot of coal, doesn’t it? Maybe their corporate tax allows them to spend more.

    What I meant about A and B was that if someone proposes a solution to VMT or congestion, then it brings up the issue of housing, If somone proposes a solution to housing it brings up a question of services, or open space. The question of open space brings up the issue of congestion, and around we go.

    If the priority is open space > pollution > congestion, then you get one kind of answer. If the priorities are re-orderd you get a different answer, I think.

    But if the real issue is open space, and everything else is just a red herring, a cover, a side issue, a means to an end, then we never get to an answer, and we are fundamentally deceiving ourselves.

    If we make some places better (as you say, more efficient, which I don’t think is the same thing at all) and other places worse, what’s the point? It is like your argument about lowering land value by shifting costs to the developer, so what? The end user, the homeowner or shopping mall owner or office building owner still favors his end use over agriculture, and will pay more. The end rsult is going to be the same, unless government takes control of the economy and market for land, or unless we have a famine, or unless we make open space more valuable, not less.

  25. Real Inconvenient Truth Avatar
    Real Inconvenient Truth

    E M Risse wrote a response at 6:01 PM that makes it clear he had not read my blog post very carefully.

    I thought the Union Station air rights sale was a reasonable comparison for the value of air rights over Route 7 or Route 123 future Metro Stations in Tysons Corner for the following reasons:

    It is a current sale of a fairly large amount of development rights. It is over a Metro Station. It is part of an already established dynamic attractive mixed-use project (Union Station). It is ideally located in terms of the value of the location, being less than two blocks from the United States Capitol. I think we can all agree that real estate in that location is worth more than Tysons Corner.

    The Union Station air rights sale was not the sale of transferable development rights. It was a sale for intended development at a specific location that requires the construction of an expensive concrete platform over the railroad tracks to build.

    Certainly building a concrete platform over Route 7 or Route 123 in Tysons Corner will share many similarities in costs with a Union Station platform. A Tysons platform could even be more difficult and expensive because it may require spanning more distance between columns (Spanning four vehicle lanes is a greater distance than spanning one or two rail tracks at a time). Route 7 is planned to be four lanes in each direction. Rail traffic is also more scheduled than 24 hour per day vehicular traffic.

    Akridge is only paying $10 million for 3 million square feet of Union Station air rights because, of course, he also has to pay to build the platform – something, which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The $10 million works out to only $3.33 per FAR foot paid to the GSA. By the time Akridge pays to build the 15-acre platform, he will have obviously paid far more per FAR foot in total costs.

    My point is that is not money that is or can be captured for Metro. Hundreds of millions of dollars in development value is lost to the platform. It is not available to pay for transportation infrastructure. I concluded by proposing a more efficient way to capture increased development value around a Metro Station. I wrote, “If you want to raise money for Metro, selling more development rights on land next to the stations will be a lot more profitable than “air rights” land over roads or on top of the stations.”

    Ed, you wrote, “Since the land AT the station is more valuable and we suggested the FAR should be 8 that is $2.7 Billion for the total air-rights package. Not bad to help offset the cost of a $4 Billion project.”

    This is where you lose credibility. You completely ignore that most of that value will be lost to building the platforms.

    Here is a good study titled “Creating Sustainable Air Rights Development Over Highway Corridors.”
    http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/35695/1/60250140.pdf

    Quoting from the study:
    “The hard cost of building the deck over the highway, including construction and safety features such as exhaust fans and fire extinguishing systems, can range between $400 and $700 per square foot, depending on the load of the building to be constructed on top of the deck.”

    That works out to between $17 million and $30 million per acre of platform over a highway. It is only when land values at Tysons Corner exceed this amount will air rights begin to have the potential to capture some additional dollars for Metro.

    I agree with you that building over a cloverleaf will be cheaper, but none of the proposed Metro Station locations at Tysons Corner are located on top of cloverleaves.

    It does bring up an idea I have thought about for some time. There is an incredible amount of wasted land in the large loops at the I-66 / Route 123 interchange in Fairfax. Fairfax County could probably sell air rights with lower platform costs there that would pay for an extension of Metro from Vienna.

    As for Cumquats, have you ever had the pleasure of picking and eating them fresh off the tree?

  26. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Hundreds of millions of dollars in development value is lost to the platform. “

    That is exactly correct, it sems to me. Furthermore, I have argued that money is pretty good proxy for materials and energy used. When you see a big money expenditure fo A vs a small money expenditure for B, then you can be reasonably sure, as a first guess, that A is also more environmentally unfriendly, taken in a life cycle, full sytems context.

  27. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    First, in our 6:01 PM post above, we referred to “Real Inconvenient Truth” who posted at 10:43 AM as “Anon 3:29 PM,” the time of the prior post. We apologize for any confusion.

    It is “Real Inconvenient Truth” who we suggested has (or is representing those who have) land they want to develop in or west of Greater Tysons Corner.

    At 9:37 PM, Real Inconvenient Truth noted that:

    “E M Risse wrote a response at 6:01 PM that makes it clear he had not read my blog post very carefully.”

    We did read your post carefully and say again that your assumptions are just that, assumptions.

    It is clear that to have solid numbers there need to be plans and bids.

    Lets stick to what we know. Your red herring statements can only be intended to scare off the uninformed.

    Draw the radii, see how much land is in public rights-of-way…. Do the cross-section sketches….

    We are glad you have been thinking about that I-66 / VA Route 123 Interchange. Another good place for air rights.

    So is the 45 acre of public land around the Vienna / Fairfax / GMU station. We outline the history of this concept in End Note 9 of our column “The Problem With Mass Transit” at db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com. An earlier version was the subject of a post on this Blog of 28 March 2006 titled “METRO-West — 22 Years Too Late.”

    Fundamental Change in human settlement patterns will come only from moving in new directions, not stewing red herrings, even if served with Kumquat sauce.

    EMR

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR
    You dodged all the facts posted by RIT.
    I’ve eaten fresh cumquats. Sorry you have not.

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “METRO-West — 22 Years Too Late.”
    I read it.
    Why blame Hanley and Scott.
    You got sandbagged by Republicans like Falck and Herrity.

Leave a Reply

Read More